NEWS: Miami Is Getting All Scarfacey

None of the weapons they had had collapsible stocks. They do make the weapons more comfortable yes, however you can always cut the stock down to suit your purpose. Banning the collapsable stock only affects legal owners of weapons.

Ok, whats this ?



I Still don't understand your argument. You've said that a collapsible stock serves no purpose what so ever to a legal gun owner, it's simply aesthetic, like a supposedly useless bayonet. How then does it affect them if it's useless to them anyway?

You know different people need different length rifle stocks, just like different people like different seating positions while driving, ergo adjustable stocks.

What does all this have to do with the lethality of what is essentially a varmint rifle? Are you in support of their being banned simply because (to some) they look scary? The AR-15 is often called a mouse gun because:

1. It fires one of the weakest center-fire rifle cartridges ever made.

2. Turns out it makes a great varmint rifle, for hunting squirrels, mice, prairie dogs, etc..

My mistake on the AR there.

An adjustable stock as I have said before aids in comfort and allows you to adjust the weapon to whats most comfortable for you. What no one has answered is why passing laws that only affected the law abiding is a good thing? Everything about what they did and how they did it was illegal hell full auto has been illegal since I believe the 30's

Here is a link you can read it or not I honestly don't care.

http://www.clintongunban.com/FAQ.aspx#a0

13. %u201CWho needs an assault weapon?%u201D
In asking that question, gun-prohibitionists demonstrate that they misunderstand more than just the right to arms. The question is illegitimate. Asked in the context of any other right%u2014religion, political expression and assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against double jeopardy and forced confessions, and trial by a jury%u2014its absurdity is apparent.

In America, the burden of proof is not upon those who wish to exercise rights, but upon those who wish to restrict them. It is well-established that only a small percentage of criminals ever used these guns in crimes. And gun prohibitionists have not presented any evidence that any criminals are affected by a law that dictates the shape of gun grips, prohibits variable-position stocks, bayonet lugs and flash suppressors, and limits the size of ammunition magazines.

More appropriate questions are:

* %u201CWhy should we prohibit guns that operate the same as millions of other guns, provide no advantage to criminals, are rarely used by criminals, but are widely used for legitimate purposes, including legitimate self-defense?%u201D

Or, more importantly:

* %u201CAre the rights and liberities of millions of law-abiding citizens to be dictated by the acts of a small criminal element?

Perhaps someone should answer these two questions.

Doesn't it bother anybody that those that wish to strip you of your 2nd amendment rights will resort to whatever sleazy, underhanded tactics they can think of to take advantage of the average persons ignorance of how firearms work?

For example:

The fact is that all fully automatic weapons that were not registered by May 19, 1986 have already been made illegal to own by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Notice how it is called the Firearm Owners "Protection" Act. How exactly does it protect firearm owners?

Another example is the term "Assault Weapon", which is a term that was designed solely to confuse citizens into thinking the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also known as the Assault Weapons Ban) was about banning Assault Rifles which by definition are fully automatic and were already subject to regulation by the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

When the AWB was proposed the media used pictures and video clips of fully automatic weapons to further confuse people, much like FTR did when he pieced this drivel together.

OK.

You're still not addressing my point. Is "cool" related to lethality? If not, why does adding a bayonet make for a "cooler" weapon?

Dear oh dear. Again, you completely miss my point?

For a start, you assume that everyone in the world knows as much about firearms as you do. (And you still have not addressed my point about the user (or not) of the weapon.)

Secondly, we're back to that "cool" thing again. If "cool" is related to perceived danger (which would be a measure of intimidation value, wouldn't it?), then we need - again - to consider why it's good or useful for gun owners to choose to look threatening.

Beg to differ. I was a member of the Guns group here for a couple of years, and I saw a lot - maybe an actual majority - of people in some threads saying that they'd take the M-16 over other AR designs regardless of which was the better weapon. Now, some of those people were no doubt military (ex- or serving) and didn't want to have to learn a new system. But there were others who were clearly invested in owning an M-16 (or AR-15, looks the same) because they saw it as an icon of American military power. That's not a healthy attitude, IMHO.

Potato, tomato.

AHHHHH!!! ok no cool is not related to lethality, it's more of a personalization thing, you may see a dozen people all with an ar15 but most of those people will customize the gun to their own specification and preferences.

AS for investing in an AR or M-16 I can't say in my area I have heard alot of ex military who hate the damn things and would prefer the US switch to a different gun all together. so as far as that goes we could discuss it all day long but it would just be you and I talking about peoples preferences. As I said I prefer the HK designs and the Sig 556 myself. I most likely will never own an AR 15 or M4 because of the gas feed system that ends up clogging the gun, you need to clean those things like mad and thats a pain in the ass. I prefer the piston operated system of the HK design.

OK. I think we might be on the same page now
So, personalisation. Let me ask you again:
- Ignoring the look of the weapon completely ignores its social aspect. I would bet money you'd never buy (for yourself) a pink firearm which might be seen in public, regardless of its fitness for purpose. Am I wrong?

Mkay. Direct gas feed is a pain, yes. I'm not up on the recent HK designs; the delayed-blowbacks (G3 and variants) made sense to me.
But that's for another thread.

A pink gun, it would depend on the gun I suppose. Honestly I doubt it I prefer the Sig because of the look of the gun, it's not blocky like a glock, a beretta has an even nicer look to it imo but I am not too keen on them. I also like wooden grips as opposed to plastic ones, A more older feel to the weapon less modern.

Now the reason your asking is due to the threat factor, well a gun is still a gun and will do the same regardless of the color and if you pulled out a gun and it was pink and the person knew it was real it would not have much of a difference in intimidation factor IMO. Most of the cosmetic features that were banned were comfort features that someone might customize their gun with to make it more personal to them. As I said I want a Bayonet for my rifle but for me it's more about having all the accessories that the rifle would normally have. I am a collector, just not one who has money enough to collect as I would like to.

Oh as for a barrel shroud on a pistol, there are pistolized versions of the AR15 that are just short cut down versions of the rifle, without the shroud the barrel was exposed to the air and by extension the users hand which would give a NASTY burn were you to touch it after firing.

I honestly thought this article was gonna be about illegal immigration...

Would you drive a pink car?

Yeah, actually now that you mention it I would carry a pink gun depending on the gun. And my car is burgundy which is not exactly a boy color car but still.

You know, I think that might be a good idea. Any "assault weapon" you like, with any sort of accessories. Just so long as they're all pink. And I mean Lady Penelope pink.

Thats fine I would just spray paint it black anyhow.

Thus proving my point.

LOL I think we have gotten far from topic tho. I customized my rifle from all black to black with a wood finish, not because it's looks more dangerous, but because I like a wood finish on a gun.